CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 9 septembre 1998

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2637CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7BE5FA7B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s556ED54D { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sE20A0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:12pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s141F584E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s68520B7C { width:6.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAEAEF8F3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s7C610E5B { width:2.58pt; display:inline-block } .s6C9D9F1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA0D91B4B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sA182E63D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s6463B60D { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sCB978AC9 { width:331.18pt; display:inline-block } .s2E818D51 { width:285.84pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s39C0B46E { width:53.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }         Comité de filtrage/Screening Panel         AFFAIRE DENEV c. SUÈDE   CASE OF DENEV v. SWEDEN   (61/1998/964/1179)               DECISION                   STRASBOURG     9 septembre/September1998   In the case of Denev v. Sweden [1] , The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 48 § 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B [2] , Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 26 August 1998, and composed of the following judges:   Mr   A.N. Loizou , Chairman ,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mr   J.M. Morenilla , and also of Mr   H. Petzold , Registrar , Having regard to the application against the Kingdom of Sweden lodged with the Court on 18 May 1998 by a Bulgarian national, Mr   Martin   Denev, within the three-month period laid down by Article   32 §   1 and Article   47 of the Convention; Whereas Sweden has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article   46 of the Convention) and ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention, Article 5 of which amends Article 48 of the Convention so as to enable a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) to refer the case to the Court; Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court by the Government of the respondent State or by the Government of the Contracting State of which the applicant is a national or by the Commission under Article 48 §   1   (a), (b) or   (d) of the Convention; Having regard to the Commission’s report of 14 January 1998 on the application (no. 25419/94) lodged with the Commission by Mr   Denev on 8   July   1994; Whereas the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time before an independent tribunal) that, in proceedings to which he was a party, the Court of Patent Appeals had failed to examine the merits of his case, the Supreme Administrative Court had refused him leave to appeal and had failed to state the reasons therefor, and that his claims had not been determined within a reasonable time; Whereas the applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 (right to protection of property) that the handling of his case and the decisions by the Swedish courts had constituted a de facto expropriation of his right to a certain design and alleged a violation of Article   14 of the Convention in that he had been the victim of discrimination on account of his being an immigrant; Whereas on 9 April 1997 the Commission declared admissible the complaint relating to the length of the proceedings and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible; Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 § 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that he sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been breaches of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and awarding him just satisfaction; Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention and Rule 34 §§ 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,   1.   Finds that (a)   the case raises no serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention, as the Court has already established case-law on the “reasonable time” requirement in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, while consideration of the other complaints lies outside the Court’s jurisdiction as the Commission has declared them inadmissible; and (b)   the case does not, for any other reason, warrant consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding that there has been a breach of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can award the applicant just satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the Commission;   2.   Decides , therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be considered by the Court. Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 9 September 1998 pursuant to Rule 34 § 4 of Rules of Court B.         Signed : Andreas Nicolas Loizou   Chairman Signed : Herbert Petzold   Registrar   Notes by the Registrar [1] .     The case is numbered 61/1998/964/1179. The first number is the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission. [2] .     Rules of Court   B, which came into force on 2   October 1994, apply to all cases concerning States bound by Protocol No.   9.